How can we determine which parts of Scripture are true?

[Zelduck]

This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?

[Peds nurse]

[quote="Zelduck"]
This is really a question for Christians, but since it doesn't assume the validity of the Bible, I think it belongs here rather than in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma section.

There have been multiple canons of Scripture. Books have been accepted and rejected for various reasons throughout Christian history. Books have lied about their authorship. Passages have been added and removed. Books were written in different times and different places by different authors and for different reasons.

So how can I have confidence in any particular verse, chapter, or book, that what I am reading is the inspired work of the Holy Spirit, and not the work of a man, no matter how pious?

What method ought I use to reliably determine what is and is not the Word of God? Has someone already done this for me, and if so, how can I tell if they didn't make a mistake?[/quote

I cannot read 29 pages of replies, so my answer may be quite repetitive. I am a Christian, with no real ties to any specific church, (not that it matters). I think 2 Timothy sums it up: "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

I know it has been translated more times than we can count. I cannot deny that during translations, often times they had to get as close to the word as they could, perhaps coming up a little short. But through and through it is God's love poured out to His people. To deny part of the book, is to discredit it completely. It is dangerous to pick and choose what parts you might think are true, because often times we choose the scriptures that are easy to digest, then we have watered down Christianity.....and there is already enough of that. I hope you find the answers you are looking for!

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Peds nurse]

I am a Christian, with no real ties to any specific church, (not that it matters). I think 2 Timothy sums it up: "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

In other words, you believe on faith that the 22 books which were selected by the fledgling Catholic church in the fourth century out of the various dozens of documents on the life of Jesus that were written are the true and valid works because that is what you believe. It's certainly your right to believe whatever appeals to you, but even you have to recognize, "I believe it because that's what I choose to believe," isn't really much of an argument.

The following is taken from Post #279, immediately above yours. It really explains everything.

This is how Christianity HAS ALWAYS WORKED! Assumptions built on elaborately constructed assumptions, which are in turn built on even more elaborately constructed assumptions. The problem with this vast latticework construction of assumption is that none of it is fixed to any actual foundation in fact or evidence. It's all smoke and mirrors and make believe. At the end of the day it's still nothing more then an elaborate facade of assumptions and unfounded assertions designed, ultimately, to establish that a corpse came back to life and flew away. And yet HERE ARE THE UNDENIABLE FACTS: ABSOLUTELY NO ONE RECORDED ANY SUCH ASTOUNDING EVENT AT THE TIME IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE OCCURRED. The resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the most significant event in human history, according to Christians, provoked not the slightest ripple of comment from anyone at the time it was supposed to have occurred. It would be a quarter of a century, circa 55, before Paul would first mention the story of the resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians. And even Paul was not a personal witness to what he claims occurred. Is it reasonable to expect that someone, at least, would have mentioned an actual resurrected dead man at the time it was supposed to have occurred? What of the hordes of dead people that came up out of their graves and wandered the streets of Jerusalem as a result of Jesus "giving up the ghost" on the cross, according to Matthew 27:52-53? One would certainly think that this would have provoked some notice. The first chapter of Acts tells us exactly how the story of the risen Jesus began to be spread. Six weeks after the execution of Jesus, his followers returned to Jerusalem and began to spread the story that he had been resurrected from the dead. It was true, they declared, because they had seen him. And where was the resurrected dead man NOW? He had subsequently flown off, up into the clouds. It was true they declared because they had seen it happen. This unbelievable story didn't even play all that well 2,000 years ago, at least not initially. The story was almost universally dismissed as a hoax by the very people in the best position to have known what actually occurred. The Jewish population of Jerusalem! The Jews believe " until this day," that the whole thing was a hoax perpetrated by the followers of Jesus. And now, after two thousand years of empty claims concerning the impending return of a man who lived and died two thousand years ago, at what point should it not reasonably become clear to a 21st century audience that ancient make believe piled on top of an evermore elaborately constructed framework of ancient make believe and tall tales, is still nothing but a huge pile of ancient make believe and tall tales?

[Zzyzx]

.

I know it has been translated more times than we can count. I cannot deny that during translations, often times they had to get as close to the word as they could, perhaps coming up a little short.

Translations are just one of the problems.

What has become known as the bible was produced by a committee of churchmen under the direction of Roman emperors. They selected some of the many early writings that fit what they and Roman officials desired.

From what has been learned about early Jesus movement (before it became known as Christianity) there was great divergence of opinion regarding critical matters such as the divinity of Jesus, the claimed resurrection (and whether it was physical or spiritual), the virgin birth, the miracle stories, etc.

None of the original writings or "bibles" survive (excepting perhaps a few scraps the size of a credit card). What did survive were copies of copies of copies by unknown transcribers. Even those are subject to revision, editing, copy errors, additions, subtractions, and pious fraud.

But through and through it is God's love poured out to His people.

Isn't it a shame that "God" (if such thing existed) didn't pour out love to all people, not just a few "chosen" ones in return for their worship?

To deny part of the book, is to discredit it completely.

In the eyes of many the bible discredits itself with numerous errors, inconsistencies, contradictions, ideas from earlier religions, metaphors and/or fantasy presented as truth, etc.

It is dangerous to pick and choose what parts you might think are true, because often times we choose the scriptures that are easy to digest,

Every Christian I have known of, including you, picks and chooses which scriptures to take as true and to follow – unless you approve of stoning disobedient / disrespectful children and adulteresses. As soon as someone says, "That no longer applies" they are choosing the parts that are "easy to digest."

then we have watered down Christianity.....and there is already enough of that. I hope you find the answers you are looking for!

The most radical, fanatical, fundamentalist, traditionalist sects of Christianity pride themselves on not being watered down. Women often walk three steps behind, wear clothing that covers them from wrists to ankles, humble themselves before men, etc. Is that the "not watered down" version of Christianity one should strive toward?

[Korah]

I appreciate historia's patience in refuting so many errors, leaving me free to just show TOTN's missteps regarding my own stuff.

Korah has been promoting a theory of his that the Gospels contain at least seven examples of direct eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Korah attempted to use the existence of the Quelle document to justify his claims, as if the existence of the Quelle was a matter of well known and universally accepted historical fact. AND NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. What Korah was attempting to do was to use a hypothetical document in an effort to establish proof of something that is also entirely theoretical....
You can offer up the Quelle as theory, but unless you can offer up an example of the Quelle itself, you CAN NOT offer it up as established fact. And NO, I'm not exaggerating.

More evidence that you have not read my Thesis that there are seven written eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Q is brought in for only one, the Apostle Matthew. I have never stated that Q was established fact, indeed I have my own ideas about the extent and nature of Q, (again showing you have read me only minimally, perhaps not the 7 posts listed at #155 at all)--as the most probable. I do not engage in your fevered black-and-white argumentation.,

[Korah]

What has become known as the bible was produced by a committee of churchmen under the direction of Roman emperors. They selected some of the many early writings that fit what they and Roman officials desired.

I take you meant the canonization of the Bible centuries after the production of the Bible. Even so this is a gross error, as the Council of Nicaea and Emperor Constantine did not dictate the Canon. That came later in the 4th Century at church councils (Carthage, Orange).

Or perhaps you are a partisan of Joe Atwill's conspiratorial origin of the gospels?http://caesarsmessiah.com/

[Zzyzx]

.

What has become known as the bible was produced by a committee of churchmen under the direction of Roman emperors. They selected some of the many early writings that fit what they and Roman officials desired.

I take you meant the canonization of the Bible centuries after the production of the Bible.

You take wrong.

Even so this is a gross error, as the Council of Nicaea and Emperor Constantine did not dictate the Canon.

Where was my error since I said nothing about Nicaea or Constantine? Isn't the error, in fact, yours for making an incorrect assumption?

You do realize, don't you, that what has become known as the bible was decided in a number of "councils" beginning in 325 CE with Nicaea and that Constantine was not the only emperor involved? Note the "s" after emperor in my statement.

That came later in the 4th Century at church councils (Carthage, Orange).

Yes, later committee meetings (councils) were held at various places in the Roman empire.

Or perhaps you are a partisan of Joe Atwill's conspiratorial origin of the gospels?http://caesarsmessiah.com/

I am a partisan of no one.

Many Theists have difficulty accepting that other people can think for themselves as individuals without subscribing to group-think (as tends to be characteristic of religions).

Since you seem to have some understanding of bible history you perhaps realize that what I said in post #282 is basically correct – as indicated by the only challenge you make being based on an incorrect assumption.

[Korah]

[Replying to post 285 by Zzyzx]
You say I'm wrong about canonization, then you describe your view of the canonization process? Looks like I was right.
To be clear, by "production" I mean the origin of individual books of the Bible. You apparently mean the grouping together of what had been produced centuries before?

[Zzyzx]

.

You say I'm wrong about canonization, then you describe your view of the canonization process? Looks like I was right.

Of course you are always "right" in your opinion. However, judging from the various threads not many seem to agree.

To be clear, by "production" I mean the origin of individual books of the Bible.

Which of the 39 "books" (perhaps more accurately described as sections or chapters) of the OT and 27 books of the NT (KJV) do you possess knowledge regarding "production?"

Who were the writers? When and where did they write? What were their sources of information?

You do acknowledge, don't you, that none of the original texts of bible "books"/sections are in existence – and that what does exist are copies of copies of copies, translated, edited, revised, etc?

You apparently mean the grouping together of what had been produced centuries before?

That is correct. I regard production of what has become known as the bible occurred centuries after the claimed events, and that the resultant book (now known as the bible) was produced by committees of churchmen acting under auspices of Roman emperors by selecting some earlier writings that reflected committee thinking and was acceptable to Roman emperors.

The committee report (the bible) was produced by the committee – much as a committee report (book) is produced by any business gathering internal information into a manuscript.

There were evidently a LOT of writings (in addition to folklore and legends) from the first couple centuries of the Jesus movement – some of which survive in one form or another.


What, exactly, is your point?

[Korah]

[Replying to post 287 by Zzyzx]
MY point? You have made the unsubstantiated claim, so the burden is on you. Your use of the word "production" was quite misleading when you meant what everyone else would call "canonization".

[Zzyzx]

.

MY point? You have made the unsubstantiated claim, so the burden is on you.

Kindly quote verbatim the "unsubstantiated claim" to which you refer.

Your use of the word "production" was quite misleading when you meant what everyone else would call "canonization".

"Canonization" is a religious term (meaning to sanction by ecclesiastical authority -- or confer sainthood) that is different from "production" (meaning something produced: a literary or artistic work: a work presented to the public -- or something exaggerated out of proportion to its importance)

An astute reader would understand that since I am known to have little ecclesiastical tendency the choice of "production" of the bible is appropriate.


Now, with that little sidetrack addressed, can you demonstrate "How can we determine which parts of scripture are true?" (the OP question).